The foreign investors were so glad (I’d call it irrational exuberance) that Thaksin was deposed they just kept on pouring their foreign currencies and investment money to Thailand non-stop. Bring back Thaksin tomorrow and I guarantee the Thai Baht will weaken past 40 before you can buy a plane ticket for Manchester City.
But that is my personal theory ngana. . . unless somebody else can think of a better one to blame on Thaksin.
Anyone care to explain the reasons for the extra-ordinary strength in the Thai baht?
It seems to be much more than just weakness in the US dollar, and the explanations of strong exports causing the strength are surprising to me, when at the same time factories are closing or relocating because they cannot compete due to the high baht.
hose factory closings could be a deluge in a flash. And farmers protesting for relief from depressing agricultural prices joining with hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers running amuck in the streets of Bangkok are NOT too farfetched and much closer than those ambivalent generals can imagine. Hey it could happen tomorrow!
Krid (#10) is right on the mark. The referendum in a big sense is a vote of approval or rejection of the recent coup. And the people will vote depending on their sense of economic well-being.
And I am beginning to believe the bungling generals do not at all have a clue that the currency problem, with the Thai Baht strengthening to 33, 32 or stronger, could in a sudden just crack the Thai economy before you can say “what the f..k!!”. Those factory closings could be a deluge in a flash. And farmers protesting for relief from depressing agricultural prices joining with hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers running amuck in the streets of Bangkok are NOT too farfetched nor closer than those ambivalent generals can imagine. Hey it could happen tomorrow!
I think you can assume the editors are geting permission from their source to release the details, which include the name of the lecturer, his version of the story, and the exam questions. I don’t think the story has been in the press yet.
To GRASS ROOT, I think your comment is somewhat unfair. To start with, I am a thai citizen, and wholeheartedly proud of it.For some of you who dont understand why one man can have such a tremendous influence to so many people please allow me to share some of my thoughts.
The king of Thailand is a very very special individual who is an inspiration to 56 millions thai people. It would be far-fetched to state that thai people are illusional and by nature insecure that they need somebody to look up to. We are talking about 56 millions people here ok!! not 20 teenagers who can be easily brainwashed and diverted into whatever direction we want.
You were using the words ” intensive propoganda” which implicating that the country is being manipulated by false information, I am curious as to what you are referring to. If you are talking about all the media that displaying the king’s merit as to what he has done for his country on a daily basis, whether will be his work on the flooding issue, his dam initiaitve, his project on agriculture irrigation and land improvement………………………………………..the list just goes on and on then i think you need to keep in touch with you rationality a little more often. PersonaIly I can see nothing wrong with that as that is a fact in which we as a community should cherish and appreciate the good thing that happening all around us especially from someone who we dearly care about. In addition this is actually setting a good example for other people to follow his footsteps. The king who can undoubtedly live an easy life , no disrespect but this is a case for many royalties, but instead he chose to the tougher path to give something back to his land and his people that is the value that you are looking for in a man. The award given by the UN as the world’s development king didnt just come out of the air you know, but it required hard work, determination, intergrity……and so much more than you can ever imagine.
After all i’m not exactly sure whether you can fully understand what i am trying to convey here or not, i wish u can though, as you cant even write a proper english.
“It will prove how resilient, adaptive to change, and able to deal with any curve balls the west throws at them, Thailand truly is.”
I find this puzzling; precisely which curveballs have recently been thrown at Thailand, and by which “west”?
Are you suggesting that democratic ideals, constitutionalism and freedom of thought and expression are “curveballs” thrown at Thailand by some strange aggregate notion called “the west”? and thus denying the possibility of any or all of these ideas having a home in Thailand?
And just what do you mean by “long” when you say “the sanctity of the institution of Kingship … has long been tied to the very identity of being Thai”? This might appear to suggest that from at least 1932 until, say, 1957 Thais were stumbling around identity-less.
Or maybe you just mean for 50 years or so.
Or do you want to suggest that the present defensive hysteria around “Thainess” and Kingly sanctity has characterized the Thai identity from the beginning, wherever you locate that?
Re: Saraburian #4 –
“Is this kind of conference open for the public to attend?”
In my limited experience, at big international conferences (such as this) opportunities for members of “the public” to attend are highly variable. Non-academics who pay their registration fee, or who are approved members of the press, may (at some similiar events) be given unhindered access.
Under normal circumstances my feeling has often been that interested members of the general public are very welcome to pay the conference fee, attend sessions and ask questions at big international conferences.
At “this kind of conference” I am, however, not sure. There is currently no information on the conference website that helps to clarify an answer. In an effort to better understand the situation, I will write to the organisers and pose your question to them.
р╕н.р╕Шр╕Зр╕Кр╕▒р╕в р╕Кр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Нр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕вр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕вр╕┤р╣Ир╕З р╕лр╕╢ р╕лр╕╢ р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░ [For my part, I have organized three panels on the monarchy under the proposal titled, “On the Monarchy: Accessories, Lese Majesty and One Book,” with overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand] р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Йр╕Юр╕▓р╕░ [with overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand]
Question: Is this just an urban legend-like artifact generated in the rumour mill of an untransparent academic environment or has it been documented and reported by some reliable news source? Is there a link or citation?
First, I’d like to apologize for not noting that you also played a useful role in highlighting the dangers of the anti-Thaksin movement.
I’ll respond briefly to a few of your points, because really all I wished to do was set straight what I believed were misrepresentations by “Republican.”
The polemics referred to were contained in series of e-mails that were sent back and forth privately among a group of interested people – activists and scholars – including a number of your colleagues. I assume you’ve seen these, so it becomes a matter of interpretation as to their significance. If the dictionary definition of polemics is that they have to be public, I stand corrected in my use of the term.
Re: the event of 25 April 2006, I really don’t know what Ajarn Thongchai’s reaction was, but with so many battles being fought that year, I’m not sure why this is the litmus test. Personally, I agree that it was “a blatant, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, anti-democratic action.” I’m not sure whose resignations you were seeking, though.
My problem with your general position is this: you seem to be posing a strict either/or proposition. EITHER you back Thaksin all the way down the line, OR you are against democracy.
My position is that there were constitutional processes to remove a prime minister, and it would have been legitimate to follow them. Perhaps you believe that would be a misguided point of view in a nascent democracy – he wrong spirit, so to speak – but that would be a fair matter to debate.
I’ll leave the matter at that. It isn’t Ajarn Thonghai we should be debating about, after all.
I think it’s great that these panels have been organised. Discussion will generate thought, more discussion, and eventually change. It will prove how resilient, adaptive to change, and able to deal with any curve balls the west throws at them, Thailand truly is.
IMHO the sanctity of the institution of Kingship, of course, won’t be negotiable among Thai scholars because it has long been tied to the very identity of being Thai, but the use of the institution of Kingship by powerful third party elites to shield themselves from criticism and scrutiny, something I’ve experienced firsthand, surely eventually will be, and IMHO maybe that’s where the payback will be.
After the coup, Thongchai tried to justify his call for Thaksin’s toppling by saying that he simply followed the ‘democratic principle’, i.e. ‘the right of citizen to call for the resignation of leaders’.
Now this is disingeneous of him and all the “2 Nos” people. Where was he (or them) when the event of 25 April 2006 happened, a blatant, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, anti-democratic action? Where was his call for RESIGNATION of ALL those involved?
Re: amberwaves
“He engaged in very strong polemics with his (ex-) comrades about the danger of joining the PAD very early on _ practically alone in his position, I might add _ and took a lot of flak for his efforts.”
Having read a lot of Thongchai’s comments during the pre-coup crises, I’d love to know WHERE and WHEN he engaged in such “strong polemics”. True, he wrote that he was against using the monarchy route and also made criticism against some of the PAD tactics, but where were his “strong polemics” against “JOINING the PAD”, both in the sense of actually joining it organizationally and (this is even more important) POLITICALLY? The fact is Thongchai and others who shouted the “2 NOs” slogan (No to Thaksin, No to Royal PM.) did JOIN the PAD politcally, i.e. demand the toppling of Thaksin, an elected PM even though Thongchai claimed to adhere to the principle of elected PM.
“Republican” is dead wrong in his comments about Thongchai, and should apologize.
Thongchai in fact warned about the dangers of the anti-Thaksin royalist current in late 2005 well before Sondhi L’s rallies really caught on (in an unpublished letter to The Nation, reprinted however in the journal October and I believe also posted on the Midnight University web site).
He engaged in very strong polemics with his (ex-) comrades about the danger of joining the PAD very early on _ practically alone in his position, I might add _ and took a lot of flak for his efforts.
He of course was proved absolutely right, and circulated the first harsh critique of the coup a day or two (as I recall) after the event, when his (ex-) comrades still remained in denial about the matter.
A lot of this was documented on this blog, should anyone care to look.
I can’t make the same defense for many other Thai academics and activists, but on the other hand, I find “Republican’s” post a fine example of negativity that leads nowhere. Or to characterize it another way: pretentious know-nothingness.
It’s the economy, stupid. Right now the economy is trudging along pulled by strong global demand and the rise of the large Asian economies. Thais are too pragmatic to risk further instability and will rather swallow the new constitution including the appointed senate and police searches without warrant for the promise of quick elections and a return to “normalcy”. As the generals have shown, they will not allow a return to full democracy and the military and the older-than-old-powers will be pulling the strings in the background. Only when they ruin the economy with their “sufficient” nationalism will the people be willing to take more chances.
Poseur Academia: My instinct upon reading Thongchai’s letter re. the preparations of the Thai Studies academic community to present papers critical of the monarchy at the ICTS is to reply that it is a pity that this “overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand” by the academics has come a year too late. But this is Thai Studies and I have long ago grown used to being disappointed. Let me make a number of points:
1. This is what I call “poseur” academia. When the critical and difficult time came to defend the democratically-elected Thai Rak Thai government against attack by the royalists Thongchai and most of the Thai academic establishment were silent. Show me one article penned by an academic prior to September 19 unreservedly defending the Thai Rak Thai government and openly condemning the royalists’ attempts to undermine it, including the role of the king. Many academics had joined either the royalists or the “song mai ao” camp. Most were secretly (or not so secretly) glad to see the end of Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin. But now Thongchai plays the anti-royalist academic fighting for democracy, leading an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere”. This is the game one sees so often in Thailand. The academic, displaying a fake earnest sense of moral self-righteousness, playing the role of the intellectual fighter for the just cause, but without any sense of responsibility or accountability. Having abandoned a democratically elected government last year they see no contradiction in now declaring their democratic principles (“…critical scholarship is what academics like us can wage against the anti-democratic tendency in Thailand…).
Basically they want to seen as philosopher kings. And like kings – but unlike the politicians these academics love to hate – you can’t get rid of these tenured academics.
2. I laugh at the naiveté of those who appear excited / encouraged at this so-called “progressive” step in the right direction taken by the organizers of the ICTS. Of course the universities (and the royalist regime) will let foreign academics say whatever they like now at international conferences: the regime has now secured close to total political control. A regime will only crack down on free speech if it is likely to impact on its political control. Do you honestly think anyone in Thailand is going to pay the slightest attention to foreign academics (or Thai academics with US citizenship) criticizing the monarchy for a day at an international conference held in English? All Thais know that “foreigners don’t understand Thailand anyway”; it’s hardly surprising they don’t understand the unique role of our monarchy. And everyone knows how impolite the foreigners are. Let them criticize in order to demonstrate Thailand’s democratic openness under the new order. Re. the Thai papers, I will reserve my judgment, but one wonders what can be said that Fa Diow Kan has not already published – in Thai – under much more difficult circumstances.
3. What the Thai Studies academics should be organizing panels around is not the monarchy, about which we all know so much already, and which academics from around the world and in Thailand can already freely discuss on New Mandala, and about which they can publish their learned articles in any number of well-known and accessible journals, but about the role of Thai academia in helping pave the way for the September 19 coup – thought their thalaengkans, their newspaper columns, their joining the PAD rallies, their interviews to the media, etc. So what we need to discuss is Thai academia as an obstacle to democratization. What should be addressed is the investment of the academics in the royalist ratchakan state system, as well as their resistance to real democratization and fear of the market. Now, if someone were to organize such a panel that would truly by an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere” – of Thai academia.
4. As to the question whether academic freedom is going to be guaranteed for those attending the conference and giving papers, which would allow them to openly criticize the monarchy, let us be clear what the issue is about here: you are calling for the academics – both Thai and Western – to be allowed the freedom of speech which is denied to Thai citizens who actually have to live under the royalist regime. Where is the rationale why academics should be allowed this privilege when ordinary Thais are not?
5. By all means give your papers on the monarchy but do not crow about your fight against “anti-democratic tendency” or pretend you are making any “overt challenge”. You abandoned that fight before September 19.
Facebook 
Twitter 
Soundcloud 
Youtube 
Rss
No!
Hah! But of course ngana Thaksin was responsible!
The foreign investors were so glad (I’d call it irrational exuberance) that Thaksin was deposed they just kept on pouring their foreign currencies and investment money to Thailand non-stop. Bring back Thaksin tomorrow and I guarantee the Thai Baht will weaken past 40 before you can buy a plane ticket for Manchester City.
But that is my personal theory ngana. . . unless somebody else can think of a better one to blame on Thaksin.
No!
Anyone care to explain the reasons for the extra-ordinary strength in the Thai baht?
It seems to be much more than just weakness in the US dollar, and the explanations of strong exports causing the strength are surprising to me, when at the same time factories are closing or relocating because they cannot compete due to the high baht.
Is there some way we can blame it on Thaksin?
No!
hose factory closings could be a deluge in a flash. And farmers protesting for relief from depressing agricultural prices joining with hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers running amuck in the streets of Bangkok are NOT too farfetched and much closer than those ambivalent generals can imagine. Hey it could happen tomorrow!
(corrrection of #11)
No!
Krid (#10) is right on the mark. The referendum in a big sense is a vote of approval or rejection of the recent coup. And the people will vote depending on their sense of economic well-being.
And I am beginning to believe the bungling generals do not at all have a clue that the currency problem, with the Thai Baht strengthening to 33, 32 or stronger, could in a sudden just crack the Thai economy before you can say “what the f..k!!”. Those factory closings could be a deluge in a flash. And farmers protesting for relief from depressing agricultural prices joining with hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers running amuck in the streets of Bangkok are NOT too farfetched nor closer than those ambivalent generals can imagine. Hey it could happen tomorrow!
Academic freedom?
jonfernquest:
I think you can assume the editors are geting permission from their source to release the details, which include the name of the lecturer, his version of the story, and the exam questions. I don’t think the story has been in the press yet.
More debate on The King Never Smiles
To GRASS ROOT, I think your comment is somewhat unfair. To start with, I am a thai citizen, and wholeheartedly proud of it.For some of you who dont understand why one man can have such a tremendous influence to so many people please allow me to share some of my thoughts.
The king of Thailand is a very very special individual who is an inspiration to 56 millions thai people. It would be far-fetched to state that thai people are illusional and by nature insecure that they need somebody to look up to. We are talking about 56 millions people here ok!! not 20 teenagers who can be easily brainwashed and diverted into whatever direction we want.
You were using the words ” intensive propoganda” which implicating that the country is being manipulated by false information, I am curious as to what you are referring to. If you are talking about all the media that displaying the king’s merit as to what he has done for his country on a daily basis, whether will be his work on the flooding issue, his dam initiaitve, his project on agriculture irrigation and land improvement………………………………………..the list just goes on and on then i think you need to keep in touch with you rationality a little more often. PersonaIly I can see nothing wrong with that as that is a fact in which we as a community should cherish and appreciate the good thing that happening all around us especially from someone who we dearly care about. In addition this is actually setting a good example for other people to follow his footsteps. The king who can undoubtedly live an easy life , no disrespect but this is a case for many royalties, but instead he chose to the tougher path to give something back to his land and his people that is the value that you are looking for in a man. The award given by the UN as the world’s development king didnt just come out of the air you know, but it required hard work, determination, intergrity……and so much more than you can ever imagine.
After all i’m not exactly sure whether you can fully understand what i am trying to convey here or not, i wish u can though, as you cant even write a proper english.
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
jonfernquest:
“It will prove how resilient, adaptive to change, and able to deal with any curve balls the west throws at them, Thailand truly is.”
I find this puzzling; precisely which curveballs have recently been thrown at Thailand, and by which “west”?
Are you suggesting that democratic ideals, constitutionalism and freedom of thought and expression are “curveballs” thrown at Thailand by some strange aggregate notion called “the west”? and thus denying the possibility of any or all of these ideas having a home in Thailand?
And just what do you mean by “long” when you say “the sanctity of the institution of Kingship … has long been tied to the very identity of being Thai”? This might appear to suggest that from at least 1932 until, say, 1957 Thais were stumbling around identity-less.
Or maybe you just mean for 50 years or so.
Or do you want to suggest that the present defensive hysteria around “Thainess” and Kingly sanctity has characterized the Thai identity from the beginning, wherever you locate that?
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
Re: Saraburian #4 –
“Is this kind of conference open for the public to attend?”
In my limited experience, at big international conferences (such as this) opportunities for members of “the public” to attend are highly variable. Non-academics who pay their registration fee, or who are approved members of the press, may (at some similiar events) be given unhindered access.
Under normal circumstances my feeling has often been that interested members of the general public are very welcome to pay the conference fee, attend sessions and ask questions at big international conferences.
At “this kind of conference” I am, however, not sure. There is currently no information on the conference website that helps to clarify an answer. In an effort to better understand the situation, I will write to the organisers and pose your question to them.
Best wishes to all,
Nich
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
р╕н.р╕Шр╕Зр╕Кр╕▒р╕в р╕Кр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╣Ар╕Ыр╣Зр╕Щр╕Др╕Щр╕Чр╕╡р╣Ир╕бр╕╡р╕Др╕зр╕▓р╕бр╕Бр╕ер╣Йр╕▓р╕лр╕▓р╕Нр╕Чр╕▓р╕Зр╕Ир╕гр╕┤р╕вр╕Шр╕гр╕гр╕бр╕нр╕вр╣Ир╕▓р╕Зр╕вр╕┤р╣Ир╕З р╕лр╕╢ р╕лр╕╢ р╣Ар╕Юр╕гр╕▓р╕░ [For my part, I have organized three panels on the monarchy under the proposal titled, “On the Monarchy: Accessories, Lese Majesty and One Book,” with overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand] р╣Вр╕Фр╕вр╣Ар╕Йр╕Юр╕▓р╕░ [with overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand]
р╕Ыр╕е. р╕ар╕▓р╕йр╕▓р╕нр╕▒р╕Зр╕Бр╕др╕йр╕Ьр╕бр╣Др╕бр╣Ир╣Бр╕Вр╣Зр╕Зр╣Бр╕гр╕З
Academic freedom?
Question: Is this just an urban legend-like artifact generated in the rumour mill of an untransparent academic environment or has it been documented and reported by some reliable news source? Is there a link or citation?
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
Ajarn Somsak:
First, I’d like to apologize for not noting that you also played a useful role in highlighting the dangers of the anti-Thaksin movement.
I’ll respond briefly to a few of your points, because really all I wished to do was set straight what I believed were misrepresentations by “Republican.”
The polemics referred to were contained in series of e-mails that were sent back and forth privately among a group of interested people – activists and scholars – including a number of your colleagues. I assume you’ve seen these, so it becomes a matter of interpretation as to their significance. If the dictionary definition of polemics is that they have to be public, I stand corrected in my use of the term.
Re: the event of 25 April 2006, I really don’t know what Ajarn Thongchai’s reaction was, but with so many battles being fought that year, I’m not sure why this is the litmus test. Personally, I agree that it was “a blatant, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, anti-democratic action.” I’m not sure whose resignations you were seeking, though.
My problem with your general position is this: you seem to be posing a strict either/or proposition. EITHER you back Thaksin all the way down the line, OR you are against democracy.
My position is that there were constitutional processes to remove a prime minister, and it would have been legitimate to follow them. Perhaps you believe that would be a misguided point of view in a nascent democracy – he wrong spirit, so to speak – but that would be a fair matter to debate.
I’ll leave the matter at that. It isn’t Ajarn Thonghai we should be debating about, after all.
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
I think it’s great that these panels have been organised. Discussion will generate thought, more discussion, and eventually change. It will prove how resilient, adaptive to change, and able to deal with any curve balls the west throws at them, Thailand truly is.
IMHO the sanctity of the institution of Kingship, of course, won’t be negotiable among Thai scholars because it has long been tied to the very identity of being Thai, but the use of the institution of Kingship by powerful third party elites to shield themselves from criticism and scrutiny, something I’ve experienced firsthand, surely eventually will be, and IMHO maybe that’s where the payback will be.
Australia 4 Thailand 0
р╕ор╣Ир╕зр╕в
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
[…] debate about the International Conference on Thai Studies often refers to the extent, or otherwise, of […]
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
After the coup, Thongchai tried to justify his call for Thaksin’s toppling by saying that he simply followed the ‘democratic principle’, i.e. ‘the right of citizen to call for the resignation of leaders’.
Now this is disingeneous of him and all the “2 Nos” people. Where was he (or them) when the event of 25 April 2006 happened, a blatant, UN-CONSTITUTIONAL, anti-democratic action? Where was his call for RESIGNATION of ALL those involved?
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
Re: amberwaves
“He engaged in very strong polemics with his (ex-) comrades about the danger of joining the PAD very early on _ practically alone in his position, I might add _ and took a lot of flak for his efforts.”
Having read a lot of Thongchai’s comments during the pre-coup crises, I’d love to know WHERE and WHEN he engaged in such “strong polemics”. True, he wrote that he was against using the monarchy route and also made criticism against some of the PAD tactics, but where were his “strong polemics” against “JOINING the PAD”, both in the sense of actually joining it organizationally and (this is even more important) POLITICALLY? The fact is Thongchai and others who shouted the “2 NOs” slogan (No to Thaksin, No to Royal PM.) did JOIN the PAD politcally, i.e. demand the toppling of Thaksin, an elected PM even though Thongchai claimed to adhere to the principle of elected PM.
Australia 4 Thailand 0
I think those yellow shirts made a difference!
Any chance that Thaksin will change the uniforms of Man City to be yellow as well?
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
“Republican” is dead wrong in his comments about Thongchai, and should apologize.
Thongchai in fact warned about the dangers of the anti-Thaksin royalist current in late 2005 well before Sondhi L’s rallies really caught on (in an unpublished letter to The Nation, reprinted however in the journal October and I believe also posted on the Midnight University web site).
He engaged in very strong polemics with his (ex-) comrades about the danger of joining the PAD very early on _ practically alone in his position, I might add _ and took a lot of flak for his efforts.
He of course was proved absolutely right, and circulated the first harsh critique of the coup a day or two (as I recall) after the event, when his (ex-) comrades still remained in denial about the matter.
A lot of this was documented on this blog, should anyone care to look.
I can’t make the same defense for many other Thai academics and activists, but on the other hand, I find “Republican’s” post a fine example of negativity that leads nowhere. Or to characterize it another way: pretentious know-nothingness.
No!
It’s the economy, stupid. Right now the economy is trudging along pulled by strong global demand and the rise of the large Asian economies. Thais are too pragmatic to risk further instability and will rather swallow the new constitution including the appointed senate and police searches without warrant for the promise of quick elections and a return to “normalcy”. As the generals have shown, they will not allow a return to full democracy and the military and the older-than-old-powers will be pulling the strings in the background. Only when they ruin the economy with their “sufficient” nationalism will the people be willing to take more chances.
Thongchai’s update on the Thai Studies conference
Poseur Academia: My instinct upon reading Thongchai’s letter re. the preparations of the Thai Studies academic community to present papers critical of the monarchy at the ICTS is to reply that it is a pity that this “overt intention to challenge the repressive atmosphere in Thailand” by the academics has come a year too late. But this is Thai Studies and I have long ago grown used to being disappointed. Let me make a number of points:
1. This is what I call “poseur” academia. When the critical and difficult time came to defend the democratically-elected Thai Rak Thai government against attack by the royalists Thongchai and most of the Thai academic establishment were silent. Show me one article penned by an academic prior to September 19 unreservedly defending the Thai Rak Thai government and openly condemning the royalists’ attempts to undermine it, including the role of the king. Many academics had joined either the royalists or the “song mai ao” camp. Most were secretly (or not so secretly) glad to see the end of Thai Rak Thai and Thaksin. But now Thongchai plays the anti-royalist academic fighting for democracy, leading an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere”. This is the game one sees so often in Thailand. The academic, displaying a fake earnest sense of moral self-righteousness, playing the role of the intellectual fighter for the just cause, but without any sense of responsibility or accountability. Having abandoned a democratically elected government last year they see no contradiction in now declaring their democratic principles (“…critical scholarship is what academics like us can wage against the anti-democratic tendency in Thailand…).
Basically they want to seen as philosopher kings. And like kings – but unlike the politicians these academics love to hate – you can’t get rid of these tenured academics.
2. I laugh at the naiveté of those who appear excited / encouraged at this so-called “progressive” step in the right direction taken by the organizers of the ICTS. Of course the universities (and the royalist regime) will let foreign academics say whatever they like now at international conferences: the regime has now secured close to total political control. A regime will only crack down on free speech if it is likely to impact on its political control. Do you honestly think anyone in Thailand is going to pay the slightest attention to foreign academics (or Thai academics with US citizenship) criticizing the monarchy for a day at an international conference held in English? All Thais know that “foreigners don’t understand Thailand anyway”; it’s hardly surprising they don’t understand the unique role of our monarchy. And everyone knows how impolite the foreigners are. Let them criticize in order to demonstrate Thailand’s democratic openness under the new order. Re. the Thai papers, I will reserve my judgment, but one wonders what can be said that Fa Diow Kan has not already published – in Thai – under much more difficult circumstances.
3. What the Thai Studies academics should be organizing panels around is not the monarchy, about which we all know so much already, and which academics from around the world and in Thailand can already freely discuss on New Mandala, and about which they can publish their learned articles in any number of well-known and accessible journals, but about the role of Thai academia in helping pave the way for the September 19 coup – thought their thalaengkans, their newspaper columns, their joining the PAD rallies, their interviews to the media, etc. So what we need to discuss is Thai academia as an obstacle to democratization. What should be addressed is the investment of the academics in the royalist ratchakan state system, as well as their resistance to real democratization and fear of the market. Now, if someone were to organize such a panel that would truly by an “overt challenge to the repressive atmosphere” – of Thai academia.
4. As to the question whether academic freedom is going to be guaranteed for those attending the conference and giving papers, which would allow them to openly criticize the monarchy, let us be clear what the issue is about here: you are calling for the academics – both Thai and Western – to be allowed the freedom of speech which is denied to Thai citizens who actually have to live under the royalist regime. Where is the rationale why academics should be allowed this privilege when ordinary Thais are not?
5. By all means give your papers on the monarchy but do not crow about your fight against “anti-democratic tendency” or pretend you are making any “overt challenge”. You abandoned that fight before September 19.